I voted for "If it's the right film..." because there's a couple of 3-D re-releases that I'm anticipating like Finding Nemo and Jurassic Park. A film that really needs to be re-released in 3-D is Fantasia.

If they wanted these old movies in 3D, they should've filmed them as such. THOR and Pixar's UP were two of my post-Y2K annual Top 40ers, and they're the exception. Even in a decade like 201X, a good 3D film is still the exception instead of the norm!

There's only one advantage to it. Putting these old movies back in theatres gives some of us who weren't yet born a chance to experience them theatrically instead of merely on DVD or streaming. Those of us who weren't born in late 197X or early 198X can now enjoy Jurassic Park, especially those born in the decade 199X (Too young for Jurassic Park). Most people who appreciated Titanic were girls born in middle 198X. And if you know any girls born in late 199X, they'll probably think it was a VAST improvement over Twilight. I thought Titanic was the 16th best film of 1997, infinitely better than the 19 to 21 films nominated for the 1997 RAZZIES. The only ones who'd appreciate a 3D re-release of The Phantom Menace are the artists who doctored Butters' face to make it look like he had balls on his chin in Episode 601, Freak Strike. And if you were born in the Decade of the 00-Agents (too young to see a film in May 2003, but likely not yet born by then), you can experience Finding Nemo (Top 40 Films of 2003) in theatres.

For me 3D is just a quick cash-scam. Why should I bother with seeing a film in 3D, when I don't like 3D to begin with. 3D almost always add nothing, and having films being re-released in 3D, doesn't make me much happier.

I haven't seen a lot of movies in 3D, but I think the ones I've seen are enough for me to vote. I saw AVATAR, and its 3D was... there. It was just there. It didn't add or nuined anything. I also saw TINTIN. The 3D was unninpresive too. And consindering that Adventure Movies are the ones who should have the best 3D, it kind of made me loose faith in it. However, for a while, I've been watching and re-watching movies that feel like I would've enjoyed them in 3D (like HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON), and others that never had 3D but I think they should have had (like the SPIDER-MAN trilogy).

So yeah, 3D can work... except like in JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH which had poor effects and things being thrown at the screen constantly. 3D can make the action look better, but only if it was already good.

Like anything, converted 3-D can be good, if it's done well, and if it's given the time to be done right. The general consensus on the 3-D in Titanic has been pretty spectacular so far -- but I think that's because James Cameron took a significant amount of time to do the conversion process, with him and his associates analyzing every shot down to its smallest detail.

Quite honestly, I've never seen a single fim in 3-D that was any better than it was in standard format. There are outstanding 3-D technologies out there, but it is prohibitively expensive to utilize them to create a feature length film, therefore they are typically only used for entertainment at Disneyland. Just to cite the latest example, I found the experience of sitting through Titanic tedious enough the first time around, and I'm sure as heck not going to shell out double the admission price to see Kate's bossoms in 3-D

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Quite honestly, I've never seen a single fim in 3-D that was any better than it was in standard format. There are outstanding 3-D technologies out there, but it is prohibitively expensive to utilize them to create a feature length film, therefore they are typically only used for entertainment at Disneyland. Just to cite the latest example, I found the experience of sitting through Titanic tedious enough the first time around, and I'm sure as heck not going to shell out double the admission price to see Kate's bossoms in 3-D

I myself choose not to see 3D re-releases. If I have seen a movie already, then I don't necessarily have to see it again. If I haven't seen it, then I would prefer to see it in a way that is easy on my wallet (usually via Netflix).

I'm not a big fan of 3-D movies in the first place - never thought the 3-D adds much to the movie experience, and it just gives me a headache. So I am almost never willing to shell out extra money to see it.

I agree, though, that it's nice to see 'older' (*cough cough, it's hard to consider any movie made in the '80's or '90's 'old'*) movies back on the big screen. Some films, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, simply must be seen on the big screen to be fully appreciated. I've never seen Titanic and am mildly interested in seeing it in theatres now. But, frankly, I'd pay to see Titanic in 2-D, but not 3-D.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou can vote in polls in this forum